From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from ipmail07.adl2.internode.on.net ([150.101.137.131]:32258 "EHLO ipmail07.adl2.internode.on.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753038AbeDQCJM (ORCPT ); Mon, 16 Apr 2018 22:09:12 -0400 Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2018 12:08:52 +1000 From: Dave Chinner To: Souptick Joarder Cc: Bob Peterson , Al Viro , linux-fsdevel , swhiteho@redhat.com, cluster-devel@redhat.com, Matthew Wilcox Subject: Re: [PATCH] fs: gfs2: Adding new return type vm_fault_t Message-ID: <20180417020852.GI5572@dastard> References: <20180414194155.GA20021@jordon-HP-15-Notebook-PC> <187987639.19951308.1523897916628.JavaMail.zimbra@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Mon, Apr 16, 2018 at 11:20:59PM +0530, Souptick Joarder wrote: > > Hi, > > > > This patch is straightforward enough, but there are a lot of other > > file systems that need similar patches. Shouldn't you do one big > > patch set that fixes several file systems at once and run it through > > Viro's kernel or Linus's kernel or something? > > Adding Viro and linux-fsdevel for more opinions. > > The plan for these patches is to introduce the typedef, initially just > as documentation ("These functions should return a VM_FAULT_ status"). > We'll trickle the patches to individual drivers/filesystems in through > the maintainers, as far as possible. Then we'll change the typedef to > an unsigned int and break the compilation of any unconverted > drivers/filesystems. > > We have already started sending out drivers/filesystems changes > to different maintainers. Yes, we can see that. The response you are getting is "this is not how we do cross-subsystem API changes. Why are you doing it this way?" i.e. the problem being pointed out is that your process has not followed the correct/normal process for proposing, reviewing and mering cross-subsystem API changes. Bob has raised the same questions as both Christoph and Darrick have asked in response to the XFS patch. I only implied these questions by asking about introducing useless typedefs with no context for reviewers... I'd really like to have Darrick's questions answered(*) in a constructive, non-abusive manner - I'll quote it here to get it all in one thread on -fsdevel: | ...hm, the original mm patch wasn't cc'd to fsdevel either, so that's | probably why I never heard of any of this until now. | | So, uh, why wasn't this whole series (all the mm changes and all the | required fs changes) sent out for review prior to the merge window? We're not asking for a description of what you are doing - we are asking why the normal processes for proposing and merging such a change is not being followed, and how you plan to rectify that. Cheers, Dave. https://marc.info/?l=linux-xfs&m=152389824107375&w=2 -- Dave Chinner david@fromorbit.com